(Original post by mevidek)
Fox hunting was a tradition, but was banned.

Yes, but the purpose was to kill the fox to provide entertainment.
The purpose of racing is to watch horses trying to outrun each other to provide entertainment. The reason for it was not to kill the horses so it would probably meet with stronger opposition than the hunting ban, which itself generated large marches.

Saying "it's cruel for the killed horses" is not a strong-enough argument.

(Original post by Alexandra's Box)
Yes, but the purpose was to kill the fox to provide entertainment.
The purpose of racing is to watch horses trying to outrun each other to provide entertainment. The reason for it was not to kill the horses so it would probably meet with stronger opposition than the hunting ban, which itself generated large marches.

Saying "it's cruel for the killed horses" is not a strong-enough argument.

It's generally cruel to whip them and stab them with a spur to get them to go faster, however.

Cropping dogs ears, for example, has been banned due to it being inhumane and cruel. Why is horse racing any different?

(Original post by EffieFlowers)
The fences are far too high. They should definitely lower them, the amount of horses that fall at the first hurdle bless them!

Then I would support that. I don't think it's even possible to stop horse racing - it's like when Peta suggests that everyone should just become vegetarian. It's not going to happen. But taking measures to lower the number of deaths should be an absolute necessity.

It really does devastate me to see the horses and jockeys fall. The horses are said to really enjoy the running but I think the fences should be lowered.

However you could say the same thing with lots of sports, there is a danger in almost every sport that exists. I doubt horse racing would ever be banned, but I think there should be some modifications made to make the race at least a bit safer.

(Original post by Rascacielos)
I'm not sure who beat who to this thread (I just created a similar one).

Jumps should be of realistic height, so the horse can clear it easily - that is, without touching the brush. The Grand National is simply a case of ploughing through the jumps and hoping the horse doesn't get its hoof caught.

I don't think horse racing should be banned entirely. It's not a dangerous sport in itself and I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that horses do enjoy racing. But jumps should be drastically reduced in height - what's wrong with flat racing anyway? I personally enjoy seeing how fast a horse can run on the flat rather than how high it can jump. For me the former seems so much more natural and beautiful to watch.

The Grand National is famous because it isn't like other races. It is probably the hardest steeplechase due to the lengthy of the course and the height of the jumps. Like every sport, horse racing has hard competitions and easy ones. No horse that is not medically fit to race will take part.

That's like saying why should people do hurdles races when they can sprint? It's a different thing. Plus, what do you think would happen to all the horses who do steeplechases if only flat-racing is allowed? The two types of race are run by very different types of horses.

The reason they are put down when they break a front leg, is because you can't immobilise the leg. Which means if you don't put the horse down, it will continue to put full weight on it, meaning that it will be in continuous pain and will suffer. As horses when they hurt a leg they still put weight on the leg.

If they could immobilse it, they would but they can't which means tragically horses are put down with a seemingly trivial broken leg.

(Original post by Stripes23)
Actually, if fences are lowered it could well have the opposite effect. By lowering the fences, horses can be encouraged to go faster, meaning they'll land harder which could increase the chance of them falling on landing.

Good point. But at least they are less likely to fall whilst jumping the fence though.

(Original post by DopeSk1llz)
the horses die because they can't race anymore after the fall right? or is the fall actually fatal

If a horse suffers a fall and gets back up straight away with no visible injury, they don't just go "Oh look, it's fell, bye bye horsie". Chances are they probably wouldn't race again but a horse only gets put down if it has suffered a fatal injury like a broken neck or a heart attack.

(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
The Grand National is famous because it isn't like other races. It is probably the hardest steeplechase due to the lengthy of the course and the height of the jumps. Like every sport, horse racing has hard competitions and easy ones. No horse that is not medically fit to race will take part.

That's like saying why should people do hurdles races when they can sprint? It's a different thing. Plus, what do you think would happen to all the horses who do steeplechases if only flat-racing is allowed? The two types of race are run by very different types of horses.

Horses wouldn't be bred especially to run a steeple chase and I don't see that as a bad thing. But as I have already pointed out, I'm not against jumps entirely. I don't think it's unnatural for a horse to jump and of course, horse races should be challenging. But something can be challenging without being so dangerous.

the fact that when a lot of horses fall /de-seat their jockeys - that they carry on racing, shows that they must enjoy racing, otherwise they would stop as soon as the chance came to stop

that's what happened with synchronized today, he didn't break his leg when he fell and de-seated his jockey at the 2nd fence, he carried on racing and fell at the 6th fence - he landed in the ditch sadly

(Original post by mevidek)
It's generally cruel to whip them and stab them with a spur to get them to go faster, however.

Cropping dogs ears, for example, has been banned due to it being inhumane and cruel. Why is horse racing any different?

There are rules about how many times a horse may be whipped. A lot of jockeys have been banned for excessive use of the whip. Also jockeys don't tend to wear spurs that are sharp in any way for the reason that it cuts the horse, which makes it run slower as it is in pain.

(Original post by stickmitch)
the fact that when a lot of horses fall /de-seat their jockeys - that they carry on racing, shows that they must enjoy racing, otherwise they would stop as soon as the chance came to stop

that's what happened with synchronized today, he didn't break his leg when he fell and de-seated his jockey at the 2nd fence, he carried on racing and fell at the 6th fence - he landed in the ditch sadly

I'm guessing you didn't watch it.

From what I remember, on the 6th fence Synchronised jumped the fence perfectly, but for some reason after he landed he bowed his head, which caused the jockey to come off and [edit]it kept going until it jumped another fence where it broke it's leg and was put down.[/edit]

There is nothing wrong with horse racing generally, its a tradition. The National is a harsh race for any horse. It should be made shorter or less horses running at a time. But horses are racers. Its what they love to do. Horses are hardly ever put to work anymore so all they have left is racing. If they banned horse racing, horses would be useless. People who raise them won't make any money.

I don't think horse racing should be banned, but the national should be changed.

(Original post by Angry cucumber)
The reason they are put down when they break a front leg, is because you can't immobilise the leg. Which means if you don't put the horse down, it will continue to put full weight on it, meaning that it will be in continuous pain and will suffer. As horses when they hurt a leg they still put weight on the leg.

If they could immobilse it, they would but they can't which means tragically horses are put down with a seemingly trivial broken leg.

That makes sense.
Thanks.
Is there no like sling we could put them in? I still think we should lower the fences in the Grand National.